culture and form

8/13/2019 Culture and Form

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/culture-and-form 1/17

Yale University, School of Architecture

Critical Architecture: Between Culture and FormAuthor(s): K. Michael HaysSource: Perspecta, Vol. 21 (1984), pp. 14-29Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567078 .

Accessed: 13/12/2013 12:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Yale University, School of Architecture and The MIT Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Perspecta.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 144.122.1.203 on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:16:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567078?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567078?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress



K. Michael ays

CriticalArchitecture

Between ulture ndForm

That architecture,s activitynd

knowledge,s fundamentallycultural nterprise ayhardlyeemcontentious roposition. ndyetquestions oncerningheprecisenatureofthereciprocalnfluencesetweenculture nd architecturalorm ringopposing heories f rchitecturendits

interpretationnto forcefullay.'

In this ssay shall examine criticalarchitecture,neresistantothe elf-

confirming,onciliatoryperationsfadominant ulture ndyet rreducibleoa purely ormal tructureisengagedfrom hecontingenciesfplaceandtime. A reinterpretationfa fewprojects yMies van der Rohewillprovide xamples f critical rchitecturethatclaimsfortself placebetweenheefficientepresentationfpreexistingcultural alues nd thewholly etachedautonomyf an abstract ormalystem.The propositionf critical ealmbetween ulture ndforms not omuch n extension f received iewsof nterpretations it is a challengeto thoseviews hat laim to exhaustarchitectural eaningn considerationsofonlyoneside or theother. t willbehelpful, herefore,obeginwith briefreview f twoprevalentnterpretiveperspectiveshatmake ust uch claim.

MiesvanderRohe

Friedrichstrasseprojectcharcoaldrawing

1919

15

This content downloaded from 144.122.1.203 on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:16:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions






/"- ii

It,.

I i

S p

i ? ?

1i

I,

? i'i

. "

aS

i1

ii

iil

? to , , -

.i .

'4








Architecturesaninstrumentf ulture

The first osition mphasizes ultureas the cause and content fbuiltform; he taskof the nterpreter,hen,becomes hestudy fobjects ndenvironmentss signs, ymptoms,and instrumentsf cultural alues.On thisview architectures essentiallyan epiphenomenon, ependent nsocioeconomic, olitical, nd

technological rocesses or ts variousstates ndtransformations.oreover,as a functionalupport orhumaninstitutionsnd as a reificationfcollective olition, rchitecturennoblesthe culture hatproducest; architecturereconfirmshehegemonyf culture nd

helpstoassure tscontinuity.Accordingly,heoptimum elationshipto be established etween ulture ndforms oneofcorrespondence,he atter

efficientlyepresentinghevaluesofthe former.

The temporal onventionf

interpretations, on thisview,retrospective.rchitectures seen s

already ompleted; hecritic r historian

attempts o restoren architectural

objectto itsoriginalmeaning.Misunderstandingspresumedo arise

naturally ecause fthechangesnarchitecture,anguage, nd worldview

thathavetakenplaceinthetimeseparatinghe rchitecturalbjectfromthe nterpreter;hemeaningmustthereforee recoveredya disciplinedreconstructionf the cultural ituationin which heobjectoriginated. tartingfrom hedocuments, ecordedctions,and artifacts hich re thebasematerialofthe historical orld,understandingsseen as essentially self-transpositionr

imaginative rojection ackwardntime.Whenthishistoricalmethod s ofsufficientidelity,n <<objective nd

true,, xplanation ftheobject nquestionresults.t is supposed hattheonly lternativeo the trict

methodological ecoveryf theculturalsituation t thetimeoftheobject'sorigin s the denial of nyhistorical

objectivityndcapitulationo the deathat ll schemes f nterpretationre

hopelesslyubjective.2

Architecturesautonomousorm

The opposite osition eginswith heassumption hat heonly lternativeoastrict, actual ecoveryftheoriginatingsituation s therenunciationf single

?truth,>> ndadvocates proliferationf

interpretationsasedsolely n form.

Interpretations ade from his econd

position recharacterizedythe

comparativebsence fhistorical

concernsnfavor f ttention o theautonomous rchitecturalbject nd tsformalperations-howtspartshavebeenput together, ow t is a whollyintegratedndequilibratedystemhatcan be understood ithout xternalreferences,nd as important,ow t

maybe reused,how ts constituentartsandprocessesmaybe recombined.

The temporalonvention f

interpretationere s that f n idealmomentn a purely onceptualpace;architecturalperationsre magined obe spontaneous,nternalized-thats,outside ircumstantialeality-andassimilable s pure dea.Architecturalforms understood o be producedn a

particularime ndplace,ofcourse, uttheorigin ftheobject s not llowed oconstraintsmeaning.The intent s

preciselyodismiss nyoftheworldly,circumstantial,rsocially ontaminatedcontent fhistory,ecause uch ubjectmatterwouldnecessarilympinge ponthe ntellectual

ibertyfcriticismnd

theavailability f theformaltrategiesfor euse.Architecturalorm an beread nd interpreted,fcourse,yetmisreadingsndmisunderstandingsreunderstood o occurroutinely,ndwithbenefit.n anycase,there s a consciousavoidance fanyhistorical r materialfact ther han hose f dislodgedformalystem. heway nwhichbuilding s a cultural bject ntimeispossessed, ejected, r achieved snot addressed.3

K. Michael Hays

i6








Such an approach asnotbeen

entirely nhealthyor rchitectural

interpretation.t hasdoneawaywithtestimonialshetoricallyroclaimingwork's reatnessndhumanistic orthon thebasisof ts ccurate epresentationofthedominant ulture. t has

developed specialized ocabularyenabling ritics o talk eriously,

technically,ndpreciselybout thearchitecturalbject s distinct romotherkindsofobjects.Furthermore,so longaswe construe rchitectureas essentially ependentnor

representativef omethinglse,wecannot eewhat tdoes tself;o longasweexpect o understandrchitecturenterms f someanteriorrocess,wecannot ee an architecturehat s,paradoxically,oththeendof

representationnd thebeginning f

something uiteitsown.

Nevertheless,heabsolute utonomyofform nd itssuperiorityverhistorical nd material ontingenciess

proclaimed, otbyvirtue f tspowerin theworld,butbyvirtue f tsadmitted owerlessness.educedto

pureform, rchitectureas disarmeditself rom hestart,maintainingts

purity y acceding o social andpoliticalinefficacy.

Moreover,hisformalistosition isks

collapsing nto an interpretivecientismnotunlike heoneitseeks ocriticize.Ifattemptsorecover<historys it

reallyhappened,, isplay quiteovertemulation f thepositivistmethodologyof the natural ciences, heformalistattitude oo often allsunwittinglyntoits ownscientism s formalategories

becomemorerigidly efinedndentrenched.Whenprioritys ascribed oformal ategoriesndoperationshatclaim tobe free fhistoryndcircumstance,nterpretivenalysis isks

simply eaffirminghat tsformal

categories redict.The supposeduniversalityf nyonekindofformal

analysis bscures hefact hat riticalmethods reformedhroughexaminationf necessarilyimited etofexemplars,nd that hese aradigmsemanate rom specificulture-theyo

notcome tous untainted. t alsoobscures he fact hat hemethods f

study fthese bjects rethemselves

partofa larger omplex nsemble f

relationships,recontaminatedytheirownworldliness,nd are egitimized ysome other ultural uthority. perhapsunforeseenonsequencefthisidealization fobject nd methods thatarchitectures denied tsspecial tatusas a cultural bjectwith causation,presence,nd duration f ts own.

Theworldlinessofarchitecture

The twopositionsketchedbovearesymptomaticf pervasive ichotomyin architecturalheoryndcriticism.One sidedescribesrtifactssinstrumentsftheself-justifying,elf-perpetuating egemonyfculture; heother ide treats rchitecturalbjects ntheirmostdisinfected,ristinetate, scontainers f a privileged rinciple f

internal oherence.Analternativeinterpretiveositionwhich uts crossthisdichotomy ould bearnotonlymorerobust escriptionf the rtifacts,but also themore ntricatenalysisdemandedbyartifactsituated xplicitlyandcriticallyntheworld-in ulture,ntheories fculture,n theoriesfinterpretationtself.

A discussion f a fewprojects yMiesvan derRohe will draw ttention o thefact hat n architecturalbject,byvirtue f ts situation ntheworld, s anobjectwhose nterpretationasalreadycommencedut s neveromplete.istoricalcontingencyndcircumstantiality,swell as the rtifact'sersistingensuousparticularity,ust ll be considered sincorporatedn the rchitecturalbject;they aturatehevery ssence f thework. Each architecturalbjectplacesitselfna specificituationntheworld,so tospeak,and itsmanner fdoingthis constrains hat anbe donewith tin interpretation.heparticular orks

byMies to be examined rethosewould describe s critical. heymightalso be calledresistantndoppositional.This is an architecturehat annotbe reduced ither o a conciliatoryrepresentationfexternal orces rtoadogmatic,reproducibleormalystem.Ifa critical rchitectures to beworldlyand self-awareimultaneously,tsdefinitions in its differencerom therculturalmanifestationsnd from prioricategoriesr methods.

K. Michael Hays

'7








Kurt Schwitters

view of the Mertzbau

Hanover

1920- 1936

r .J-.."

~l~tfi) ;i

r??

"'^

?t

~.~:'c

I

L?

The criticalrchitecture

ofMies van der Rohe

Amongtheprincipal roblems heintellectual aced n the first alf fthe twentiethentury astheacuteanxiety hatderived rom hechaotic

metropolitanxperience.n theessay<<TheMetropolisnd MentalLife,>>thesociologist ndphilosopher eorgSimmeldescribed hiscondition s <the

intensificationf nervousstimulation,,resulting rom he<the rapidcrowdingofchanging mages,thesharpdiscontinuityn thegraspofa singleglance,and theunexpectednessfonrushing mpressions. hesearethepsychologicalonditionswhich hemetropolisreates.,,The typicalconsequence fthisnervenleben,according oSimmel, s a blaseattitude-ablunting fdiscrimination,an indifferenceovalue,a languidcollectivity.<In hisphenomenonhe

nerves ind n therefusal o react otheir timulation he astpossibilityfaccommodating o thecontents ndforms fmetropolitanife. The self-preservationf certain ersonalitiessbought t thepriceofdevaluating hewholeobjectiveworld, devaluationwhich n theendunavoidably ragsone'sownpersonalityown ntofeeling fthesameworthlessness.,>>

The problem or he ntellectual,hen,was how toopposethisdebilitatingdismay,butfirst owto reveal t-howto provide cognitivemechanismwithwhich o registerhe ntense hangescontinually xperiencedn themoderncity.Manyofthecentury'sarly rtisticexperiments,rom hewoodcuts f

EdvardMunchto thenovels fFranzKafka,maybe seenas attemptsoarticulate heabjectdespair f theindividual aughtbyimpersonaland incomprehensibleorces. hereklamearchitekturadvertisingarchitecture)fEric Mendelsohn ndthefactories f Hans Poelzigmademanifest,as iftopin down andcontemplate,hedynamism, hecontradictions,ndthedisjuncturesn theprocessesnd

reasoning f commercend industry. ntheotherhandDada's ferocious ihilism

was an explicit ttempt o demonstratethefutilityfconventionalmodesofreasoningn theface fthechaotic ity.AsJeanArp put it, <<Dada wished odestroyhehoaxes freason nd todiscover n unreasonedrder.>>5AndMondriannamedthecity tself s theultimate orm owardwhichde Stijltended. <<The enuinelyModern rtistsees themetropoliss Abstractivingconverted ntoform;t is nearer ohimthannature.>> It is against hismetropolitan redicamenthat heearly

work fMies vanderRohe houldbeseen.

Edvard Munch

-The Scream,,

1895

.-.....

Eric Mendelsohn

SchockenDepartment Store

Stuttgart

1926-29

E?e

K. Michael Hays

18








Georg Grosz

,Friedrichstrasse>lithograph

1918

JiSIfl ,

"~ L-~ f

;f\ `r,i.1`;k

9 ciA~

91 ~?'ir I

tz~r ..,i/

\~3~i)~iThe rathertartlingmageofthe1922

skyscraper roject,published n thesecond ssue ofG, compriseswoarchitecturalropositions. ne, a resultofexperimentslready egun nMies'sFriedrichstrasseroject, s a buildingsurfaceualifiedno longerby patternsfshadowon an opaquematerial utby

thereflectionsnd refractionsf ightbyglass.The other, radicaldeparturefrom ven the earlier kyscrapertudies,is a buildingform onceivednot nterms fseparate, rticulatedmassesrelated ooneanother y geometricallyderived ore,butas a complexunitaryvolumethatdoes notpermit tself obe read n terms fan internal ormal

logic.With these wo related

propositionsMies confrontedhe

problem fphysicallynd conceptuallyrelating he architecturalbjectto the

city.The glass curtainwall-alternatelytransparent,eflective,r refractive

depending n lightconditionsnd

viewingpositions-absorbs,mirrors,rdistorts he mmediatemagesofcitylife. The convex,faceted urfaces re

perceptuallyontorted ythe nvasionof circumstantialmages,while thereflectionachconcavity eceives nitssurface s thatof ts ownshadow,creating apswhich xacerbate he

disarray.

Mies van der Rohe

Friedrichstrasse

project, charcoal

drawing

1919

K. Michael Hays

19








Mies van derRohe

Skyscraperrojectplan

1922

4[,.?'f' "ltl

r1 .1

li

Miesvan derRohe

Skyscraperrojectmodel

1922

(I-I

4f,:1:1M

MiesvanderRoheSkyscraperrojectcharcoaldrawing

1922

These urfaceistortionsccompanyandaccentuateheformalnscrutabilityof hevolumetriconfiguration.nclassicallyerivedorm,heviewer angrasp nantecedentogic f he bject,decipheringherelationshipsetweenitspartsndconnectingveryart oacoherentormalheme;he lternative

posited yMies sanobjectntractabletodecoding yformalnalysis.t isimpossible,orxample,oreduce hewhole oa numberf onstituentartsrelatedy ome nternalrmaturertransformedhroughome ormaloperation;ndeed, o uch ompositionalrelationshipsxist.Neithers itpossibletoexplicatehe bject sa deflectionfromome ype;Mieshasrejectedhemeaningshat uch lassical esignmethodsend opromote.nstead ehas nvested eaningn the ense f

surfacendvolumehat hebuildingassumesna particularime ndplace,ina contextuallyualified oment.

Mies nsists hat n orders mmanentin the urfacetselfndthat he rderscontinuous ith nddependentpontheworldn which heviewerctuallymoves. his ense f urfacendvolume,everedromheknowledgeof n nternalrder r unifyingogic,isenoughowrenchhebuildingfromhe temporal,dealized ealm

of utonomousormnd nstallt n aspecificituationn the ealworldof xperiencedime, pen o thechance nduncertaintyf ifen themetropolis.' ieshere hares ith adaanantagonismgainst priorindreasonedrder; e

plunges,into he

chaos f henew ity nd eeks notherorder ithintthrough systematicuseof heunexpected,he leatory,heinexplicable."

This solicitation fexperiences

intrinsic o themeaning f thework; tserves o identifynd individuate hework tself s an eventhaving ensuousparticularitynd temporal uration,bothof which re nfrangibleo itscapacity or roducingndconveyingmeaning.Nevertheless,Mies'sskyscraperroject s notconciliatoryothe circumstancesf ts context. t is acriticalnterpretationf tsworldlysituation.

K. MichaelHays20








In the skyscraperproject of I922 Mies

approached radically ewconceptionofreciprocityetween hecorporealityof the architecturalbjectand the

imagesof culture hat urroundt;by 1928-in projects like the Adam

buildingon theLeipzigerstrassenBerlin,the bank nStuttgart,ndthe

competitionor he

Alexanderplatzn

Berlin-heseemsto have diverted isefforts.heseprojects bstainfrom

any dialoguewith thephysicalparticularitiesftheir ontexts;s

peremptorilyemonstratedn the

drawings, heglass-walled locks ouldbe reproducedn any itewith no

significant anipulation ftheir orm.

Thougheachbuildingunithas been

adaptedto theshapeandsize of ts ownlot for xample,theAlexanderplatzproject), he relentlessameness ftheunits nd their ndifferentiatedrdertend todenythepossibilityfattachingsignificanceo theplacement r

arrangementfthe forms. ut the

repudiation fa priori ormalogicastheprimaryocusofmeaning s

preciselywhat s at issue; t is this

repudiation hat inkstheprojects f

1928 to the researchof I922. Meaningismadea functionf mpersonalproductiveystems ather hanof formal

operationsr ofrepresentationalevices.

Z

I4,,u

SC~ i. 1&

Miesvan der Rohe

Stuttgartankproject

collage

1928

''....

;;;

"" i

Ii

1;

i ?

i':i

*:t'

~~,,,...,?r:?

-?9

MiesvanderRohe

Alexanderplatz roject

1928

6 0

-,S ... ..,..-:

.-. .

-

"'

46'Lif1A-- s r %~~~'?~~?~I*; T4p :-?JiA4

Mies anderRohe

Alexanderplatzrojectcollage1928

K. Michael Hays

21








Herewemusttake Mies at hisword.<<Werefuseorecognize roblems fform, utonlyproblems fbuilding.Form s nottheaim ofourwork,but

onlytheresult.Formby tself oesnotexist.Form s an aim is formalism;ndthatwereject. As hypothesizedyMies, modern uildingproductionrequires hat achbuildingunitbe

completen itself et dentical oallothers, isallowing ither ierarchical

relationshipsmongunits r

predeterminedoints f focus rtermination. ejecting hespecificationsof theAlexanderplatzompetition,orinstance-which avored curved,peripheral uilding hatwouldencloseand centralizehespaceof the

preexistingrafficircle-Mies's bjectsaredisposed n sucha waythatnoresolute enter an be found.Across hePlatzoracross he ntervalsf pacebetween he serialbuildingunits, achglass-walled lockconfrontsnd

recognizes othing ut ts double.Liketwoparallelmirrors,ach nfinitelyrepeats heother's mptiness. he spaceis duplicitous, utthe motivations

inescapable.Mies'sachievement as to

openup a clearing f mplacable ilencein the chaosof the nervousmetropolis;thisclearing s a radical ritique,not

onlyofthe establishedpatial rder fthecity nd the establishedogicofclassical

omposition,utalsoof the

inhabiting ervenleben.t is the extremedepthofsilence n this learing-silenceas an architecturalormll itsown-that s the architectural eaning fthisproject.

Bothconceptionsfthe rchitectural

object-as the efficientmbodimentfa dominantystem fvalues, ndastheuncircumstancedxistencefautonomous orm-are eriouslychallenged, f notdefeated, ythewayin which his ilent learing laims

place n theworld.First heres the

recognitionfthereciprocityetween

theculturallyualified,mpiricalconditions fbuildingproductionndthepractice f rchitecture. ies'sobdurate efusalomanipulate is

objects o conformoany priori ormal

logichas the effectfrepudiatinginternal ormal perationss a sourceof theobjects'meaning. econd,thoughMies succeeds ndirectinghearchitectural eaning otheoutside-towhatmightbe called cultural

space-there s the nsistencehatarchitectureoesnot<<honestly

representhetechnical, ocial,oreconomic onditionshatproducedt.Indeed,Mies's architectureonceals he

<<real?origins f ts formationydisplacing hemwith materialsubstitute-an rreduciblyrchitectural

object.It effectivelyancels hecomplexnetwork fcolliding orcesn whicharchitectureriginatesopresent swith thesilent act f tsexistence.

<<Sincethe facts ave thefloor,etanyonewhohasanythingo saycomeforwardandkeephis mouthshut,,,wrote

KarlKraus. oMies's silent rchitecture,following raus'sdictum, omesforwardooccupy tsculturalpaceactively;tdisplaceswhatwould havebeen n itsplace. Critical rchitecture

pushes side otherkinds f discoursercommunicationnorder oplacebeforetheworld culturallynformedroduct,partofwhose elf-definitionncludes heimplication fdiscontinuitynddifferencefrom ther ultural ctivities.

Distinguishingrchitectureromheforceshat nfluencerchitecture-theconditions stablished ythe marketandbytaste, hepersonal spirationsfitsauthor, ts technical rigins, venitspurpose s defined y ts owntradition-becameheobjective fMies. To achieve his,heplacedhisarchitecturena critical ositionbetween ulture s a massive odyofself-perpetuatingdeasand formsupposedly ree f circumstance.

Our observationsanbeverifiedagainst hemasterworkfMies'searlycareer, he1929 German avilion nBarcelona.Withrespectoouranalysisthusfar, hisprojectnitially ppearspolemical nd self-critical.he Pavilionhasbeenwidely egardeds themostimmaculate ranscriptionfthe modern

spatialconception: synthesisf

Wright'shorizontallanes ndthe abstract ompositionsfthe

Suprematist-Elementarists;ithhonorificodsto thewalls ofBerlage(<<letalone from loor ocornice?), hematerials fLoos,and thepodium ndcolumns fSchinkel; ll processedthrough hespatial onceptionsfde Stijl.This seems oclaimfor hePavilion rarefiedpatial rder hat

presentstself s an a priorimentalconstructather han palpableworldly bject.

However, his s precisely ot he orderof Mies: <<The idealistic rinciple forder . . with tsover-emphasisn theideal andformal, atisfies either urinterestn simplereality orour

practical ommonsense.>

The BarcelonaPavilionbeginswith

horizontallyxtended pacewhich sdescribed ytheuninterruptedoofslab, itsrelation o the columns ndwalls,and thecorrespondingonstancyofsection nd volume mpliedbythefloor lane. Space is, quite iterally,continuous etween he Pavilion nd the

plaza infront f the Palace AlfonsoXIII. The Pavilionmore pecificallyengages ts sitethrough hecarefulcontrast etween he ongtravertinewalls,theroof lab,and the unbroken

palacewall. All this olicits he viewertowalkthrough hebuilding,butthelimpid harmonyf theexteriorsconfoundedn theexperience f thespatial uccession f the nterior.

K. Michael Hays

22








ii

0000"

ir

mm,..

What should trike s forcibly,hen, sthat heartifacts nothingess than

winningf eality.12 hough t existsto a considerablextent yvirtue f tsownformal tructures,t cannotbe

apprehended nlyformally. ordoes t

simply epresent preexistingeality.The architecturaleality akes tsplacealongsideherealworld, xplicitlysharing emporal ndspatialconditionsofthatworld,butobstructingheirabsolute uthority ithan alternativeofmaterial, echnical, nd theoretical

precision.A participantn the worldandyetdisjunctivewith t, theBarcelonaPaviliontears cleftn thecontinuousurfacefreality.

'"

".

.X

if.. to

r* it t 66

-ij

..,.I

??f

, .,ii

a

MiesvanderRobeGermanPavilion

in Barcelona

1929

drawing f

interior

b c

GermanPavilion

inBarcelonainterior

d, e

GeorgeKolbe

<Dancer*

GermanPavilion

inBarcelona

1929

1)

K. Michael Hays

25








fil

._.--...

i.--..?

s

I 4j ?

=a=__

Max Ernst

<<Tous les vendredis, les

Titans parcourrant nos

buanderies? from

La Femme 1oo Tetes

Irar

toprv?

10 0

I to"

.00e.:

Mies van der Rohe

Illinois Instituteof

Technology (IIT)

1939

A brief nalogywill perhaps ffordhese

points ddedclarity.n 1929 Max Ernst

publishedhispictorialnovel,La Femme

Ioo ThtesThe HundredHeadlessWoman), a purelymetropolitaninspiration omprising series f

collagesmade fromcenesgathered rom

popularnineteenth-centuryllustratedbooksandmagazines ntowhichErnst

grafted bjectsoroccupants oreignothem.What resultsn suchcollagesas <<Tous esvendredis,esTitans

parcourrontosbuanderie> (EveryFriday, he Titanswill invadeour

laundry)s a laconicdisplay ftwo ncommensurablexperiencesinterlockedcross he surfacef thework.LikeErnst,Mieswas able to seehis constructionss theplace inwhichthemotivated,heplanned, nd therational rebrought ogether iththe

contingent, heunpredictable,nd the

inexplicable.his vision

persistedven

in Mies's laterworks.The campusofIIT, for xample, anbe construeds aredistributionf someof thedesignstrategiesftheAlexanderplatz rojectand the BarcelonaPavilion-a subtle

graftingf an alternativeealityntothe chaos ofChicago'sSouthSide.

K. Michael Hays

26








Authorshipsa resistantuthorityFrom heskyscraperroject f1922totheBarcelona avilion,Mies'sarchitecturalrogramwasa persistentrewritingfa few hemes.Beginningwith setofarbitraryropositions,Mies rationalized isinitial hoiceofthemes ydemonstratingherange ftheir pplicability.He reused hem n

changingircumstances;emodified

and refinedhem ver ime.Thissort f

repetition endershe ssueoforigins rfirstausesunproblematic,nearbitrarycantusirmuseing mitated ndrepeatedsomany imes s to loseitsprimacy.

Thoughthebeginning fhisauthorshipis arbitrary,epetition emonstratestheconsistencyfMies's authorialmotivation;t establishes he

constancyfhis ntent.A persistentlyrearticulatedntent ccumulates

knowledge-more pecificndmoreprecise-of hegeneral rchitectural

programndallowsthegrowth f that

knowledge ccording o itsownspecialbeginnings nd conventionsatherthan ccording o thosederived romsomeprior uthority.Mies doesnot

accept preexisting rame f

reference;e representseithernauthoritativeulturenor nauthoritativeormalystem.

Repetition husdemonstratesow

architectureanresist, atherhanreflect,n externalultural eality.nthiswayauthorshipchieves resistant

authority-anbility o initiate r

develop ulturalknowledgewhoseabsolute uthoritys radically ilbutwhose ontingentuthoritys a quitepersuasive,ftransitory,lternativeothedominant ulture.Authorshipanresist heauthorityfculture, tandagainst hegeneralityfhabit ndthe

particularityfnostalgicmemory,ndstillhavea very recise ntention.

Criticalrchitectureandarchitecturalriticism

One crucial ssue remains nclear:what s theprecise ealm ftheoreticalinterestn a critical rchitecture?owdoesonedefine rdemarcatehe patialortemporalnterval hat s thefocus fa critical xamination farchitecture?This discussion fMies suggests hattherealm f nterests in the distanceestablished etween rchitecturendthatwhich s otherhan rchitecture.

No singlebuilding-neitherhemost

distinguished or hemostpedestrian-canreflect preexistentultural ealitywithperfect idelity.o theextent hata work s architecture,tdiffers

qualitatively othfrom representationofrealitynd from reduplicationfother ultural ctivities.But thedifferencearriesdeologicalmotivation;itproducesknowledge othaboutculture nd aboutarchitecture.t shouldbe possibleto recognize oththemeans

bywhich rchitecture aintainstsdistance rom ll that s outsidearchitecturendthe conditions hat

permit he existence f thatdistance.

The kindoftheoreticaltudy uggestedheredoesnotassumetheprior xistenceofunchanging rinciples or

interpretingrchitecture.nsteadwhatis assumed s a specificituation romwhich amethe decision omake

architecture.his means hatach

architecturalbjectplacesrestraints

upon nterpretation,ot becausethesituation s hiddenwithin heobject sa puzzle,butrather ecause ontingentandworldly ircumstancesxist t thesame evelofsurface articularitys theobject tself. nterpretivenquiryies inan irreduciblyrchitecturalealmbetween hose onditions hat eemto

generate r enablethe architect'sintentionomakearchitecturendthoseformsn which he ntentions

transcribed.

The contingent uthorityftheindividual rchitectxists t asensitive odalpoint.The individualconsciousnesss a partof and is awareof thecollective istorical ndsocialsituation.Because ofthis wareness, heindividual s nota mereproduct f thesituation ut is anhistoricalnd social

actor n it. There s choice nd,therefore,heresponsibilityfa criticalarchitecture.

Butwhat, then, s theresponsibilityfarchitecturalriticism r of critical

historiography?s it to teach ndtodisseminatenformationboutthemonumentsfculture?s it todelivertechnicalnsights ndopinions boutthecapabilities f the architectr theform fthebuilding?Or is it,as hasbeensuggestedhere, oconcentraten

the ntrinsic onditions hroughwhicharchitectures madepossible? n orderto know ll we can aboutarchitecturewemust be able tounderstandachinstance farchitecture,ot as a passiveagentofculturen its dominant

ideological, nstitutional,nd historicalforms, or s a detached, isinfected

object.Ratherwe mustunderstandtas activelyndcontinuallyccupyinga cultural lace-as an architecturalintention ith scertainableoliticaland intellectual

onsequences.riticism

delimits field fvalueswithinwhicharchitectureandevelop ultural

knowledge.

Architecturalriticismnd critical

historiographyre activities ontinuouswitharchitecturalesign;bothcriticismanddesign re forms fknowledge.fcritical rchitecturalesign s resistantandoppositional, hen rchitecturalcriticism-as ctivityndknowledge-shouldbe openly ontentiousnd

oppositional,s well.We must eekalternativeso entrenched odesof

operation ndcanonical orms.We muststrive o invest ritical iscoursewith

somethingmore han ompensatory,appreciativeeflectionsrmethods fformalnalysis or bjectswhoseculturalmeaning s thought obeundecidable. t is preciselyheresponsibilityfcriticism hat hisculturalmeaningbe continuallydecided.

K. Michael Hays

27








ii

;~~X:lc

~1-

t~

- \~"li-da

-) -

'z:

ae

;:1

~?

?ii'

B`r

?a::

u-k

i

~I

r

i

?"';

": rx*.-~1~"

a~;~~; ?irt

~tt.

I have benefitedromthe

questions and criticisms

ofRISD studentswho

participated in

myseminar,

<<Interpretationsf

ModernArchitecture,,

where many ofthe deas

presented herewere

formulated;and from

the responses f

colleagueswho read

earlier versions f this

paper. I especiallywish

to thankStanford

Andersonand Rodolfo

Machado for theircontinuedsupport nd

encouragement.

K. M. H.

Mies van der Rohe

Minerals and Research

Building, IIT

1939

K. Michael Hays

28








Notes

I

By culture,as I shall use

thetermhere,

understanda conceptual

unity comprising,on the one hand,

those theoretical nd

practical systemswhich

authorize,promote, r

constrain theproduction

and use of deas and

objects nd bywhich a

society ra place

differentiates tself nd

maintains its hegemony;

and on the otherhand,

theartifacts nd

environmentswhich

endure as resourceful

physicalprecedents r

exemplarsofsystems f

productionand become

transmitters fculture.

Thus, it is in the

purview ofculturethat

theproduction of

architecture s overseen

fromabove bya

dominant system f

values saturating

downward, and

generatedor validated at

its base bynormative

standards of practice

and methodologies hich

may themselves ecome

culturalagents.

2

The historicism fthis

positionhas been

criticizedbynumerous

authors,mostnotably

StanfordAnderson,

Colin Rowe, and David

Watkin. Watkin uses a

Popperian argument

against historicism

withoutnoting

Anderson's earlierstudy

<Architecture and

Tradition,in

,TheHistory,Theory,

and Criticismof

Architecture*

Marcus Whiffen, d.

Cambridge,MIT Press

1965.

Watkin doesmention n

a differentontext

Anderson's reviewof

Pevsner's Sources ...

in,Arts Bulletin,

vol. 53 Sept. 1971

PP274-275.

I shall not rehearse these

criticismshere.For a

recent discussionof

interpretationshat

emphasize the

object'sorigins

see S. Anderson

,APresentness f

Interpretation nd of

Artifacts:Toward a

History ortheDuration

and Change of

Artifacts,in

wHistoryn, of,and

forArchitecture,,

JohnE. Hancock, ed.

Cincinnati

UniversityofCincinnati

1981.

3

The unfortunate

oversimplification,

packaging, and

consumption fColinRowe's <<collage city*

approach byvarious

epigones s indicativeof

theprevalenceofthis

attitude. ThoughRowe

could notbefitted asily

into thearchitecture-as-

autonomous-formmould,

suchstatements s the

followingare often

misleading to those

inclined toward

uncritical consumption

of mages ofthepast:

4It shouldbe obviousby

thispoint thatpresent

argumentshave little

to do with <history.,

<History,> sofar as we

are aware, relates to

concatenationofevents

and their tylistic

profile. n the

framework ofthis

discussion it can only

interestus very ittle;

and, ifwe are interested

in theusefulness f

particular morphologies,

we are correspondingly

unconcernedwiththe

provenanceofspecific

models.

Fred Koetter nd

Colin Rowe

<<The Crisis oftheObject:

The Predicament

of

Texture,<Perspecta 16 ig98o

P135 and n 5

4

,TheMetropolis nd

Mental Life,

(English translationof

,Die Grosstadt und das

Geistesleben,Dresden 903) in

,TheSociology f

GeorgSimmel,Kurt H. Wolff,

trans. and ed.

New York,Free Press

1950 P415

5

Jean Arp

o<OnMy Way:

Poetry nd Essays

1912-I9i6,,New York,Wittenborn

1948 P91

6

Piet Mondrian

oDe Stiflf

7

Rosalind Krauss makes

a distinction between

what she calls analytic

or narrative time-in

which the viewer can

grasp the a priori

transcendent tructure f

theobject-and real

time-in whichthe

viewer encounters orm

open tochangeand

circumstance. The

development feach in

modern culpture s

discussed in

<Passages in

ModernSculpture,

New York,VikingPress

1977

8

Mies's well-known

friendshipwith

the Dadaists

Kurt Schwitters ndHans Richter nd his

collaboration with the

editorsof<G,

support

thisreading ofthe 1922

skyscraper. he

implicationsofMies's

affiliationwith the

Dadaists haveyettobe

fully explored.

9

In PhilipJohnson

,Mies van der Rohe*New York,Museum of

ModernArt 1947

Io

Karl Kraus quoted by

WalterBenjamin

in <Reflections,

EdmundJephcott, rans.

New York,Harcourt

BraceJovanovich

1978 p243

II

Johnson p 94

Also see Mies's

disavowal of

de Stijl in Peter Blake

,A Conversation

withMies,

in <Four Great Makers

ofArchitecture*

G. M. Kallman, ed.

New York

DaCapo Press

1970 PP93ff

12

StanfordAnderson uses

thephrase <<winning of

reality, toemphasizethe

reciprocityetween anobject,its creation,and

its interpretation.The

phrase capturesthe

notion that the

understanding of

building unfolds nd

may change in time.

See Anderson,

<A Presentness f

Interpretation nd of

Artifacts..

13I owe my understanding

of ntention-as all that

whichfollows rom

special beginning-to

Edward Said

,Beginnings,Intention

andMethod,

Baltimore

JohnHopkins University

Press 1975

K. Michael Hays

29

culture and form

Documents